Posted on: February 03, 2015 by M. Oliver Heydorn

Category: Social Credit News

The Case to "Reinstate" the Bank of Canada

     There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act. This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada's top constitutional lawyer.

     The nature of the lawsuit has been explained on in the following terms:


     Canadian constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, on behalf of Canadians William Krehm, and Ann Emmett, and COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) on December 12th, 2011 filed an action in Federal Court, to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to municipal/provincial/federal governments for "human capital" expenditures (education, health, other social services) and /or infrastructure expenditures.The action also constitutionally challenges the government's fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back "tax credits" to corporations and other taxpayers. The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada's monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

     The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada's banking system and socio-economic policies.

     The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and /or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems."


     On the 26th of January, 2015, the latest appeal on behalf of the Crown to have the case dismissed was rejected by three judges in Federal Court in Toronto. The Federal government now has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Cf. Interestingly enough, both the case itself and the various developments that have occured are not being covered at all by the mainstream media. While Mr. Galati's other cases have regularly received wall-to-wall coverage across the country, this particular case, which he believes is probably his most important case to date, has so far been ignored. When questioned about this, Mr. Galati said that he has a firm basis for believing that the Canadian government has requested or ordered that the mainstream media not cover the case (he could not divulge his sources), and that, in his opinion, the government does control the media to a certain extent and on certain limited issues. He also added that he does not believe that we in Canada are living in a democracy. In fact, as far back as 1999, he has been on record as claiming that we have entered a 'quiet dictatorship.'

     As far as its merits are concerned, Mr. Galati said that the case is on solid legal and constitutional grounds and his clients should win. Whether they will win or not is another question. As Mr. Galati has acknowledged: "Not all meritorious cases in our judicial system win".


    From a Social Credit perspective, saving the taxpayer large sums of money and/or preserving the country from an increase in public indebtedness via the issuance of interest-free money from the Bank of Canada is certainly a good thing.[1] However, such a reform of the system does not address the fundamental problem with the present financial and economic orders: the chronic lack of consumer buying power. The macroeconomic gap between prices and incomes, which is primarily caused by how real capital (machines and equipment) are financed and how their costs are then accounted for under existing conventions, is THE issue which needs to be addressed. In the main, the present system deals with the gap by filling it with additional debt-money from the private banking system in the form of public, corporate, and consumer debts. In lieu of these palliatives, a Social Credit system would fill the gap with 'debt-free' money and distribute it to consumers, directly through a National Dividend, and indirectly through a National Discount on retail prices. It is critical that the individual, the common consumer, be the prime beneficiary of any monetary reform and that he be accorded full control of credit-policy within the context of a properly functioning financial system.

      In connection with this particular lawsuit and as a further clarification of the point just made, I should also mention that granting the government the right to fill the gap according to its policy-objectives (i.e., employing people to work on public production), or, more broadly, granting it or the state the sole right to control the whole money supply, is thoroughly incompatible with Social Credit's underlying social and political philosophy. Institutions exist to serve the interests of individuals, not the other way around. That is, individual consumers must control financial policy, not the government, the state, or the private banks. There is no point in "restoring the right to create and issue money to the state" if the state is then going to control the purposes for which producer and consumer credit are to be issued. This is the great trap of which certain monetary reformers, who are rightly concerned about the hegemony of private banking, are blissfully unaware. If, God forbid, such reformers get their way, and the state were to obtain total monopoly control over the money supply, I think they will find to their horror that the same people who levy a great deal of control over the private and partially decentralized monetary system will be in complete control of the state system.

     Monopoly is the name of the game; let us not be 'useful idiots'.


 Addendum: Those individuals who believe that the main problem with the current financial system and economic regime consists in the mere fact that the private banks create the bulk of the money supply ex nihilo and then charge interest on the loans that they issue would do well to carefully read the following blog posts which explain the differences between this view and the unique Social Credit approach to monetary reform:,,,



[1] Douglas often criticized the practice of relying on borrowings from private banks at the going market rate of interest in order to finance government operations. Cf., for example, C.H. Douglas, Social Credit, rev.ed. (Gordon Press, New York: 1973), 136-139 (emphasis mine):


     "The National Debt rose between August 1914 and December 1919 from about six hundred and sixty millions sterling, to about seven thousand seven hundred millions sterling. And this rise represents, on the whole, the expenditure over that period which it was deemed impracticable to recover in current taxation. That is to say, if we take the average taxation for supply purposes over that period 1914-1918, as being about three hundred millions per annum, the amount paid by the public as consumer for the goods and services supplied to it for war purposes, was about thirteen hundred and fifty millions, and the financial cost of those goods and services was about eight thousand three hundred and fifty millions, a ratio of cost to price of about roughly 1 : 6.2. In other words, goods were sold to the public at one-sixth of their apparent financial cost, and no one lost any money over it at the time. How was this done?

     A considerable amount of this money (some of which may be in excess of the figures just mentioned) was created through what are known as the Ways and Means Accounts, and the working of this is described in the first report of the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges, 1918, page two. Paraphrased, the process may be shortly explained as follows.

     If ten million pounds credit is advanced at the Bank of England to the credit of Public (i.e. State) Deposits (which simply involves the writing up of the Public Deposits account by this amount), this amount is paid out by the Spending Departments to contractors in payment for their services, and when the cheques are cleared, passes to the credit of the contractors' bankers (joint Stock Banks) account with the Bank of England. The joint Stock Banks are accustomed to regard their credits with the Bank of England as cash at call and, therefore, ten million pounds is credited to the depositors of the Joint Stock Banks, and ten million pounds to the Joint Stock Banks' cash account.

     As a result of this, the joint Stock Banks, working on a ratio of one to four between so-called cash and short-date liabilities, are able to allow their customers (working on Government contracts) overdrafts to the extent of forty millions, a portion of which their customers may devote to taking up Treasury Bills or War Loans. The banks themselves may take up about eight millions of Treasury Bills or War Loan, out of their additional 'deposit' balances, or they may lend about eight millions to the Bank of England to lend to the Government. Eventually, the result is the same, namely that the Government owes forty millions to the banks, through the Bank of England.

     Now the first point to notice is that the result of this complicated process is exactly the same as if the Government itself had provided forty millions, in Currency Notes, with the important exception that the public pays 4 or 5 per cent per annum on the forty millions, instead of merely paying the cost of printing the Currency Notes. The effect on prices, while the forty millions is outstanding, is the same, and the contractors pay 6 or 7 per cent for their overdrafts instead of getting the use of the money, free. But if the forty millions is redeemed through taxation, or a Capital Levy, the public pays not only the 5 per cent per annum, together with the contractor's 6 or 7 per cent, plus a profit on both of them, but it pays the whole of the forty millions out of money which has been received in respect of wages, salaries, and dividends. So far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that Currency Notes should be retired by taxation. It is true that when this forty millions has been repaid, both the original debt and the repayment cancel each other, and only the interest charges go to the Profit and Loss Account of the Bank. But since, as we have seen, the repayment of bank loans means the immobilisation of an equivalent amount of price-values, this only means that a fresh loan with fresh interest charges has to be created. A consideration of these facts will make it easy to understand the implacable opposition of bankers and financiers to Government paper money and their insistence on the importance of what they term redemption. The payment in current taxation of only one-sixth of the price of war stores, etc., meant, therefore, that a credit grant of the other five-sixths of the price was made to the Public. The repayment of this credit is only justifiable on the assumption that banks own Public Credit."












Posted: February 03, 2015

By: Jean-Nil Chabot

Excellent news. I wonder who speaks for the federal government.

Posted: February 04, 2015

By: Martin

Harper speaks for Government.

Posted: February 04, 2015

By: legal eagle

"Harper speaks for Government". Yeah, but not Canada's. Harper as good as pledged allegiance to Israel, and has even said publicly that he would make decisions in favor of Israel that would be counter to Canada's best interests (most would call that treason but I digress).
Iceland showed the world that it is possible and even advisable to dump the money junkies and their odious debt load. High time Canada did the same. LET the central banks fail and jail the crooks would tried to pillage their countries.

Posted: February 04, 2015

By: Brit Abroad

M.Chabot;You should best wonder who TELLS your government what to do & what to think.Remember Voltaire?."If you wish to know who rules over you,you need only to find out who you dare not criticize".Don't just "follow the money".Find out who profits from the present Bank of Canada setup.I think you'll find that the "people you dare not criticize" & the bank owners/profiteers have a LOT in common.

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: Michael Rivero

This case is worth keeping in the public eye, especially since I am getting emails from Canadian readers that links to these stories are being blocked in Canada.

The wealth of the private central bankers rests on a simple mechanism of taking control of a nation's currency and then issuing all of that currency as a loan at interest. This mechanism guarantees immense wealth to the bankers and perpetual debt-slavery to the people. Canada's Central Bank was created with the requirement that loans to the national, provincial and municipal government be made interest-free, but starting in 1974 the Bank of Canada abandoned that principle, reaping huge profits from the Canadian taxpayer for loaning money that like all private central bank money is created out of thin air. This lawsuit seeks to return the Bank of Canada to the original rules, and possibly repay the illegally collected interest. Because the Bank of Canada clearly and openly violated the rules, the courts have so far found for the plaintiffs. The Private Central Bankers are in a panic, not only because of the potential loss of money, but because this case is calling attention to how these private central banks, and other people in other nations are starting to ask why their own banks are not operated the same way so as to reduce the taxpayer burden.

Here in the United States, the question every taxpayer should be asking right now is why, when the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to create and issue a debt-free currency, why that government persists in borrowing created-out-of-thin-air money from a privately-owned central bank at interest, plunging the people into hopelessly unpayable debt. The inevitable answer is always the greed of the Private Central Bankers aided by the complicity of hopelessly corrupt politicians.

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: Angel

Excellent news.

The whole world is watching and waiting!

Hopefully, third judgement very lucky!

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: Canadian Patriot

The money lenders have killed Presidents to keep their monetary control. They aren't about to give it up here or anywhere; at least not without a horrendous fight.

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: Very curious

I'm really puzzled why everyone is so very comfortable about the Canadian government (or any other government, for that matter) needing to borrow money, whether at interest, or not. Yes, borrowing at interest is a bigger burden than borrowing interest-free. But, why should a sovereign nation have to borrow money at all? Why not have your Treasury print your own money, and put in place controls of your country's money supply, as your Treasury sees fit?

Am I missing something here? Because, if this lawsuit is about the right to borrow money at no interest vs the right to borrow money at interest, then the win, to me, is a very hollow victory.

Seriously, why should a government borrow money, in the first place? Why not print and issue money, with the amount printed backed by your labour force?

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: John Parr

Very Curious,

I believe a government should have to the ability to borrow interest-free money from itself as much as the nation needs. The fact of the debt whenever the government spends that money ensures that the government taxes it back, and prevents undue inflation. But there is something else that the government should be printing money for, without taxing it back- to fill the fundamental gap between prices and consumer incomes.

From my research, it appears there is a lack of money in our (the consumers') hands. This gap is not only due to banks charging interest, but to multiple other factors as well, much of which is associated with the build up and accounting for the costs of physical capital.

Simply targeting interest as the problem won't be enough. Consumers will continue to fundamentally suffer a chronic lack of money to buy everything that industry produces, because of the extra costs and complications that physical capital creates. It can be filled in the short term by taking out more and more debt, both publicly and privately, but that only pushes the problem into the future, and places us further at the mercy of creditors. Expanding the economy with debt can exacerbate problem as well, if more physical capital is developed with this debt.

While lowering interest will lower the gap to a certain degree, it won't permanently go away until we have a public authority that can create the requisite amount of money necessary to bridge the gap entirely. This money would have to be distributed as a universal basic income and/or a universal retail subsidy; if the money was placed in consumers' hands any other way, it would appropriate undue power to the state.

Once this gap is bridged, the economy will be much more stable. Businesses would always be able to sell so long as they had a worthy product, and employment would be available for anyone seeking it. Lowering unjust returns from interest and ensuring that loans will be available to the productive economy as required will definitely remain an issue, and will require its own solutions. But solving it will be much easier in an economic environment where creditors do not have so much power because of their ability to provide an otherwise ailing economy with enough debt-money to let it limp along for a few more years.

This doctrine I've described is called Social Credit, and more information can be found out about it by exploring this website.

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: hp

Zio-America Jr.

O Canada long ago disappeared into the Yehuda Triangle..

New York - London - Tel Aviv

Posted: February 05, 2015

By: Betty L.

Queensland, Australia experienced a political upset recently. The government of the day was thrown out of office and the final results of the voters’ preferences will not be known for another week, but there are at least three (minor party and Independent) who will wield the casting/deciding votes on important decisions in the next parliament.

Due to extreme drought conditions for a number of years, many western outback families were in debt to the banks and the banks were forcing them off their properties. With the help of the social media, their cause was taken up by many Queensland folk and banks were embarrassed into agreeing to stay their hand for twelve months and not foreclose on any properties in the region.
This will not solve the long-term problems of the outback farmers and business peoples – it is but a temporary reprieve.

The minor party duo has issued a statement which included the following:
“We have met with the Treasurer and the Coordinator General to discuss the finances of Queensland and what we can afford,” Mr Knuth said.
“We believe there’s a fair appetite for the policies we represent in Queensland. One of those is developmentalism; that’s the primary driver for our decision making.”

How sad. These fellows can’t see ‘the wood for the trees’. Instead of asking what was, or could be, the productive capacity of the land and its people, they went ‘cap in hand’ to the Money Power who would tell them what ‘could be afforded’ financially!

Instead of grasping the fact, the reality, of the potential and current natural real wealth of their state – which is huge – they went ‘cap in hand’ to Mammon to ask him what could be financially afforded and to what extent would he allow the people of the land to enjoy their own wealth.

These fellows will probably be thrown out at the next elections because Mammon is determined to keep a tight control on the purse strings and the reality of the abundance is not going to be released – for their own people.

The people won’t understand why they are on this financial/debt treadmill and the politicians won’t make the effort to understand why – and what can be done about it.

When are people going to grasp the truth that the financial system is - or should be - merely an accounting system and should simply and accurately reflect the real world of wealth produced - and distribute the abundance to all accordingly? Surely the system was made for man - not man for the system?

Posted: February 06, 2015

By: Liam Allone

@Michael Rivero and others of a similar view... What you are proposing will put us all from the frying pan directly into the fire. Step back and look at the BIGGER picture. It is true that if the government created and spent the money into circulation (i.e. that is what happens when the Bank of Canada (BoC) gives government the money for infrastructure) instead of borrowing it from banks, there would be no interest BUT YOU WOULD STILL NEED TO PAY IT BACK! That is a HUGE problem. Why does it need to be paid back? If you understand the GAP and why it is there in the first place, you would understand that simply creating the money and spending it into circulation WITHOUT the requirement to repay simply addresses the accounting flaw that the GAP's a-priori existence reveals.

Now take this one step further. If the government created the money it needs and spent it into circulation, we would not need to pay taxes. That's good right? Well maybe not. If government is the sole source of the money that fills the gap, then we all become vulnerable to pork-barrel politics. You see, it's all about who has the CONTROL.

Social credit solves this problem by giving the money to WE THE PEOPLE - NOT the government. WE THE PEOPLE decide what will be bought and thus have CONTROL. Government continues to collect taxes that WE ALL HATE and this is the continuous restraining force that keeps government at check. If they spent money into circulation as a bottomless pit, they would grow even bigger than our ridiculously bloated governments already are.

If you hate slavery as I do, then you must recognize that even if this action in Canada succeeds, it will not FIX what is really wrong with our economy - the GAP. I will admit though that in the short run, it will make things a LITTLE better. To switch from stabbing me with a knife to hitting me with a hammer is not much relief.

Posted: February 07, 2015

By: Timothy Madden

Here is where I would start to describe the same problem as a more basic problem which is the deposit function (an excerpt from a larger essay on seven major obvious defects in the global financial system).

The Deposit function

Assume, for the sake of argument, that some force, divine or otherwise, makes me the winner of $1 billion in cash in a super-multi-state powerball-type lottery. That $1 billion in cash would bestow upon me some quantifiable and very substantial socio-economic power.

By whatever means, fate will have selected me for such power, and of course about 100 million people would have each paid an average of at least $10 in cash buying tickets to make it happen.

Also further assume, just to keep track of it, that the average lottery-ticket-buyer earns $14 per hour, and nets $10 after taxes, such that the $1 billion jackpot represents the product of an aggregate 140 million hours of labour.

But the cash would be mine regardless and I would own it in fact (possession) and in law.

Yet the next day when I deposit the cash in a private bank, the cash henceforth belongs in fact and in law to the bank, and I (henceforth) have an unsecured liability of the bank that I own and which I can trade with others, but which did not cost the bank anything of substance to produce.

Now the private bank also has $1 billion of new socio-economic power by my decision to so favour it - a systemic pure gift of the equity and product of 140 million hours of labour already performed.

Now apply the same process to the (say) $5 trillion-plus of earnings from new broadly-defined labour services annually in the U.S. economy.
Assume that you work for a year to earn a cash payment of $100,000 in exchange for your labour and other skills and talents that others find useful in that amount. You too will have earned a certain amount of socio-economic power.

But the instant you deposit the money into a bank account, it is no longer your legal or actual money, and you have unwittingly made the private bank an equal partner in the product of your year's labour. Same with cheques/checks (and anything that is deposited) – the bank literally owns your pay-check the instant you deposit it.

The same goes with all the illegal drug money globally. Even if the drug dealers could obtain every last coin and banknote on Earth, there is still less than the USD-equivalent of $1 trillion, or about a one year supply for the world’s broadly-defined substance-abuse industries. So if it has been going on for 40 years-in-fact, then you know with certainty that virtually every last dollar of drug money is being laundered-in-fact (converted to deposit balances) through private banks. They are partners-in-theory and they are partners-in-fact.

Then if and when you participate in the financial markets, you find that your local bank, as all banks individually and collectively, is not just a scorekeeper, but an active participant on the economic and financial playing field. So even if you beat it, you give your gain back to it when you deposit it. When your opponent scores a point, it scores a point. When you score a point, your point is forfeit to your opponent, but you get a different kind of point as a consolation, so it is kind of all right.

And since at least my great-great-great-grandfather’s time, our global army of economic analysts, with more troops worldwide than Napoleon and Wellington combined at Waterloo, cannot figure out that unearned and unjust conveyance of rights of property in money itself, via deposits and the custom and practice of private bankers, is a multi-hundred-trillion-dollar annual business of itself, and the defining reality of our entire system. It has just never occurred to anyone that it might be important?

Just as the words “Application fee” excite a different area of your brain, than do the words “True-principal-amount and real-interest-rate obfuscation and concealment fee” or “GAAP-fraud concealment fee”, so too does the word “deposit” evoke a very different reality than the more conceptually accurate “gratuitous wealth transfer”. As in “Hi Bob, I just got my paycheck, and I am on my way to gratuitously assign the right of property in my earnings to the bank. I'll meet you later for pizza.”

Since the founding of the privately-owned Bank of England, for that matter; for 320 years our international army of bloodhound economists have failed to grasp the significance of this one all-encompassing and game-defining rule.

Now let's see, why would an economist concern themselves with something as arcane as rights of property in money itself, in a global system that processes $98 of financial/money transactions for every $2 of actual GDP? You witness $3 quadrillion of financial transactions annually to support global GDP of $60 trillion (2%) and you Einsteins can't think of a single reason why rights of property in the $3 quadrillion might have some effect on human socio-economic relationships?

Assuming that there are about 6,700 substantive private deposit-taking institutions globally, then there would be one such special-player per million human players (labour units). Assume also that each special player is substantially and beneficially owned and/or controlled by one vested-oligarch-family-unit, with the most senior (and largest by far) units having been in place for almost 500 years.

In this game, all 6.7 billion human players perform labour each day for wages and 90% of them, by amounts, deposit those wages into deposit (gratuitous wealth transfer) accounts at one of the 6,700 special-players/family-units, at which point the wages become the legal and actual property of the special-players/families. The special players call their special advantage a "level playing field" and which is their inherent right by the custom and practice of private bankers.

And for 320 years our inter-generational global army of economists cannot figure out “What's wrong with this game?”

Posted: February 08, 2015

By: ned

Above, Michael Rivero says: "...and possibly repay the illegally collected interest" . I think about 2/3 of it is compounded interest , so $4-500 billion federal?!! God, I pray we win this thing- will be greatest day in history!

Posted: February 09, 2015

By: Derek

Douglas's proposals can be simplified to good effect. I see no need for a "National Discount on retail prices" in a Social Credit system where all new money is issued ex nihilo, as a National Dividend, to households as first spenders (direct purchasing power = economic votes). Money is rightly a utility – part of the commons. Entrepreneurs can work to satisfy steady consumer demand, in a genuine free market with ample buying power. Elected government officials can present a bill with an itemized list of audited expenditures, which citizens can pay directly, as a contract for desired services rendered. We can thus end the "tax" scam, the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada slush fund (which Galati's lawsuit hints at), and rein in our elected representatives to fulfill only what the Canadian people require of them as public servants / contract signatories. The free ride's over for the financial class.

Posted: February 09, 2015

By: Oliver Heydorn

Hi Derek,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments! The purpose of the discount is to ensure that prices will reflect the real costs of producing them (the real cost of production is consumption) and to provide a mechanism whereby the possibility of inflation might be eliminated - profits would be regulated by an agreed percentage on turnover. If all of the compensatory, debt-free money were distributed in the form of the dividend there is a chance that it may bid up prices and thus the increase in money would not translate into an increase in purchasing power. Of course, money for production would still be lent by private banks to businesses under Social Credit. I think your tax ideas have much merit.

Posted: February 24, 2015

By: Derek

Hi Oliver,

A proposal for price/profit regulation interferes with the free market principle. What should be enforced by regulators is strict antitrust/anti-cartel legislation, to break up any emerging monopoly/oligopoly. Price is naturally subjective and fluid, and should depend on a direct relationship between producers and consumers (without interference by middlemen), thus reflecting genuine market conditions (demand/supply). We see free-market dynamics operating in large bazaars, where price tends to vary fairly significantly, depending on haggling/negotiations between buyers and sellers, and on competition among vendors. (See "The End of Capitalism" article by Anthony Migchels.)

Posted: February 25, 2015

By: Oliver Heydorn

Hi Derek,

In general, I would say that Social Credit requires a number of paradigm shifts in order to be correctly understood. Neither the c/p price regulation nor the idea of regulating profit on turnover should be confused with price controls as they have sometimes been employed in the past under the current economic regime. As far as the price factor is concerned, it is a percentage that applies across the board on all retail goods and services and only AFTER all of the costs and profit-margins have been added in order to ensure that all costs can be covered and profits made. In other words, businesses are completely free to set their prices as conditions change. Neither the government nor the state will tell them what their prices should be. They can sell an item for 100 dollars or for 150. BUT, whatever they sell it at, the same percentage discount will apply as part of ensuring that average final prices reflect the real costs of production (prices that are free of the distorting/inflating influence of capex expenditures). As far as the profit regulation is concerned, this would be an agreed percentage on turnover as deemed appropriate for the industry in question. Its purpose is to prevent businesses from arbitrarily raising their prices because there will be more money about due to the dividend and compensated price. An increase in the money supply must translate into an increase in purchasing power, otherwise we are wasting our time. This does not interfere with the free market as such; it merely changes the rules of the free market game. Businesses that wish to make a greater profit would have to sell more units or increase their turnover by obtaining a greater market share for their good or service. Now, in principle, if prices can be kept down by the businesses themselves under force of competition so that they approach the kind of reasonable profit on turnover that the profit regulation mechanism is meant to achieve, then that would render the regulation of profit margins unnecessary.

Posted: March 27, 2015

By: Jeremy Hawton

The most important part of central banks is that they be public and non profit. They should have no incentive but to serve the people. Money exist by law and is law. Legal institutions are non-profit so banking institutions should be non-profit as well.

It seems that all the financial problems we face involve the activities of private banks. If I was in charge, I would shutdown all private for profit banking completely. Only non-profit public banks would be allowed to manage, allocate (loan), and issue the money supply.

Posted: March 28, 2015

By: Oliver Heydorn

Hi Jeremy,

The problem with making all banks public is that the government or the state would then have a total monopoly control over the money system. The key to the financial problems we face is policy. The financial system, whether public, private, or a mix of public and private institutions, should serve the common good, the good of each citizen. The financial system should not serve an oligarchy, whether public or private. Complete public control is dangerous because it could be used to impose an oligarchic policy on the population, as was the case, for example, in the Soviet Union. People might be told: unless you do what the government dictates you won't get any meal tickets. Social Credit stands for the decentralization of power. Institutions should serve individuals; individuals should not be sacrificed to institutions. Provided they are serving the correct policy, private for-profit banks could continue to operate in a Social Credit system within their proper jurisdictions.

Posted: April 06, 2015

By: Richard Rattai

The 60 days for the Federal Government to appeat to the Supreme Court is over.
What happens now?
What is the next step?
Congratulations is due to William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and COMER for their percestance and the good judgement to have the Canadian constitutiohal lawyer Rocco Galati as their prosector.
Thank you.
Richard Rattai

Posted: May 18, 2015

By: Walter

Unfortunately this idea being presented by Mr Rocco Galati is the ideas of John Hotson and must not be confused with the ideas of CH DOUGLAS and Social Credit. Douglas wanted the money to be given to every man, woman and child from Birth till death. This will then allow the people to create what the people want and not the Government or the Local Councils to give them what they want. This money would be paid as a National Dividend and is designed to cover what is commonly called the gap in pricing. It is this money that is being borrowed from the banks because of this gap in pricing and it cannot be repaid. Proof is in the pudding. Look at the debt. By giving the money to the people they will control their own destiny and not these Councils and Government. They are the representatives of the Common Will of the people and as such are your servants and a servant only needs to know two words. Yes Sir or Madam. There has to be a great philosophy behind who creates the money and for what reason. Read C H Douglas's Philosophy to understand properly how money should be created and for whom. Just having a government create the money without a decent philosophy behind it it could be cutting off your fingers. Good luck Mr Galati someone has to, but be careful you may release a bigger terror faster than what the banks are doing right now. It has taken 2000 years since Jesus turned over the tables of the money lenders calling them the devil and exposing the Debt Money System for what it is. It cost him his life.

Posted: October 10, 2015

By: Bob Bobinson

Awareness of this needs to be spread, if people around the world understood that all of our nation's money is loaned to us by private banks there would be an uproar.

Posted: November 19, 2015

By: Alfons Hughes

I experienced life as one of the illuminati for a very short period when I was in grade four. The lessons I learned have stuck by me for the remaining 60 years of my life.
I brought the entire wad of Monopoly money to school, and starting with a gold nib fountain pen for which I generously offered $1000, which was refused, I went on, doubling my offer, which was met with an unexpected hesitation, which I capitalized on by throwing in another $500 and closing the deal.
I went on from there, buying up every pen, pencil, ruler, eraser, or whatever else anyone would part with for whatever it took to move the needle of greed in my victims until I owned all the school supplies of the 80% willing to go along with the lie.
I kept my treasure in my bin desk which lifted up to open, and each time any of my victims were required to do any writing or other work, they lined up in the aisle and asked to borrow what they had sold me.
While I was doling all this out I have no doubt Mrs. Stevenson was watching to see how it would all play out, and to her credit, without a word.
The assignments were finished, and all the treasure was dutifully returned, and all continued for about 2-3 days.
Then, in the gym class just before lunch on the last day of my term of ruler, we were instructed to line up in three rows and jump up and down as instructed. The wad of cash which I was keeping in my back pocket fell to the floor, and when I broke ranks to retrieve it, Mrs. Stevenson stopped the rest of my fellow jumpers, and demanded to know what I was doing. Amid a great silence I replied that I wanted to pick up my money.
"Bring it all up here" she demanded, to which I meekly complied. "Now throw it all in the garbage can"
I did as she said, resumed my place and the excercise continued on for a few more moments till the lunch bell rang, and we were led back to the regular classroom and dismissed.
I saw that the spell of confidence was broken and that I was in danger of a major setback of the physical kind if I tried to maintain the fraud, so I did the right thing and gave everything back, pronto.
Thereafter I have reflected on this experience, and I hope my victims have done the same, coming to the conclusion that you can fool some of the people some of the time, (about 80% of them ) and that money as we know it is just paper with numbers printed on it with no greater cost to the issuer for high or low numbers, and that the important thing to keep front and centre is the level of confidence your fellow citizens (fellow victims?) have in the paper.
When confidence begins to fail, I counsel the robber barons such as I was for a moment, to make plans to return the ill gotten gains or face the wrath of the mob. Buy stock in shipping companies, which will do a land sale business.

Posted: January 19, 2016

By: Ernest Dick

Good for Rocco Galati Canada needs to reinstate the Banak of Canada we have been run by bandits and thieves and politicians what Canada needs is a statesman not another politician

Post a Comment

Reload Image